Rightglory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2017, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2017 04:10 PM by ethos.)
RE: Rightglory?

(16-10-2017 03:29 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:That is a strawman argument. I am not closed to the possibility of god. I just see no justification to believe in him/her/it.

Sorry. Thanks for the term. I see now that people usually use strawman arguments, for due to heresies they disparage only false images of God they have created themselves, but not the True Image of Him.

Quote: Deesse23
You have neither demonstrated the possibility of a god
Yes, I have not subordinated the Unimaginable for I can't.
Quote: nor its factual existence
Nor could I remove the qualities of our causal reality.
Quote:Interestingly in the process you go into longer tangents to establish that he does neither exist nor not exist
it isn't my Idea, i only try to express Him.
Quote: (possibly to get around having to prove he exists i guess)
There is proof, through the lives of the Saints who harbored the Holy Spirit inside of them, or through miracles that transcend our reality. They all require belief. Since if not, any objective revelation by God would have been enforced on us, without us being able to choose not to accept it, thus would invalidate our free will - remove the possibility of having a personality.

Quote:Please explain what this third state is like and demonstrate there is something (a god) in this state.

I cannot give you a relative expression that could ever contain His Absolute Image, thus subject the Absolute Power to my relative power, apart from what you have inside of you as His Image. Read the lives of the (correct) Saints, see the many remains kept of them, see that they have existed (but not necessarily be able to make the Holy Spirit reveal Himself through them) ..
What you stated asserts as possible for someone to make, so to speak, a snowglobe with the Absolute in it. Though, I know that such a thing happened once, not by our will though.


Quote:You didnt get my point. Knowledge is a subset of belief and i didnt imply you claim to know he exists. My beef was you connecting loving him and believing he exists with "because". This a causal connection, a very clear statement, which i refuted. Believing something exists (just as well as claiming to know, this doenst change the argument at all) because/based on you love it is irrational, regardless how certain you are with yur belief. Knowledge or belief was never the problem, "because" is the problem in your reasoning. My point still stands.

Thank you for noting this. Love comes after. And I hope it got clear that the "be Cause" is the Part out of our rational understanding as suggested by you as well.

Quote: Yes, expanding the dichotomy of "exist or not exist" to someting entirely new (a third option), of wich you havent brought qualities to the table nor supporting arguments or even evidence. I think this is somewhere between intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest.

"Third" is something that exists as well. I see myself as dishonest and very lazy indeed, however that statement, requiring me of giving you evidence, declares me able of subordinating the Absolute and forcing you to accept It, negating your free will. This would essentially remove the qualities of relativity, of causality . Only by arguments and by miracles that require your belief is your free will going to remain intact. To bring qualities on your table means, in our reality, for me to bring them into my life trough the Holy Spirit, as it is just me who accepted Him, and not you. What you could see in the relative world in that case, that is under my power, could only be my behavior, according to how much I manage to accept Him in my life by willingly subordinating my free will to His. Thus, I do try to give you qualities on the table by deeds which testify for Him. Trough His Help. But I am far away to be able to do that for I am a hideous being and very far from a (rightglory) christian, let alone a saint.

Quote:Thats what you have been told. You have bought it line, hook, and sinker, and now you are in a state of mind that you can be made believe any other crap too, and i dont have to prove its existence, how convenient. Pink unicorns for example. They dont exist, and they dont not-exist too.

In an infinite universe, pink unicorns exist. God is what Is beyond notions of existence or nonexistence, and we know that only through His Help. Unfortunately, "convenient" is what we are doing - absolutizing our relativity.

Quote:You just need to believe in them, give me some of your money for this revelation and please hate, discriminate and/or kill the following parts of the population: #########

About the money and the killing - (orthodox) Christians didn't go to any crusades. We aren't forced to do anything in our Society, as we are parts of the Ekklesia - (greek for "the Called forth") , the Kυριακή - Kuriakē - "of the Lord" -Kirkja - Church. I would be happy if unendingp could give us some of her etymological knowledge.

Quote:He told/revealed you? How? How do you know there is a "he" anyway ( i am avoiding the term "he exists" since you conveniently introduced the infamous third stste of existence) to believe in what he tells you? Your argument can be applied to any deity with also zero evidence and also zero reasoning.

How - through a miracle. Could we claim we could make someone swim without having him seen water or we could explain air to someone who never took a single breath...

And it is through His Help is that we know Him, revealed in the (correct) tradition we hold.

It is reasonable to assert that for any external observer, the deities - false or Not - would look the same, for his perspective is relative.

Quote:Somebody tells you to "believe him" that you dont need to find a good reason, like his existence, because he tells you so.
After you have His vantage point, you have the possibility to doubt everything in the material world. However, the only way I can hope to reveal the Absolute to any person, or to you, is by my behavior, as I don't have the power of making Him reveal Himself to anybody, without the person having the wish for that, for it would negate her free will. It would deprive that person of her only quality that is in her power, that is - her personality, expressed through her free will. It would make her simply a function of causal reality.
Me, speaking about the Absolute essentially means giving you shells (words) that you would need to fill with your own meaning that you've had through your experiences. Which is virtually futile if trying to grasp the Absolute, for in this world we have only causal notions that are possible to us to form.

Perhaps try not to grasp Him, but let Him grasp you. Otherwise it would have meant he isn't truly God, if someone could grasp Him. It seems like your notion of the Absolute is less accurate, thus you imply subordinating him is possible.

Quote:You are engaged in circular reasoning.

From what I wrote you may find that we all are engaged in circular reasoning, referring only to us and our subjective reality.

Quote:No it isnt. Thats an entirely different claim. Wishing things into existence is not the same thing as wishing things out of existence.
I may not like him, but you like him. You wish him into existence, but my disliking has no effect.

The (correct) faith implies He is outside of these notions. If it is my idea, can someone wish it out of existence? No, nor the opposite could be done by me, to wish an idea of mine into you if it doesn't exist inside of you.

The statement claims that:
I could wish the Idea I am been given for Him, through the Holy Spirit, in my mind
into your mind
by my own will?

We are relative, this isn't possible to us. Though, The fact that we have a notion of Him means that we aren't completely relative - there is apparently some of Him, Who is in us as well. The fact we are able to form notions at all about our material reality, see it as different to our substance, differentiate it from us, discern it, subject material reality to our free will, etc. means that we know that material reality is different from us. It means that there is Something beyond our brain, beyond the sum of the synaptic impulses, that isn't from this causal world.

Quote:tl;d
All i have understood from you, so far is:
"I believe him him. I dont belive he exists, i dont belive he doesnt" then a lot of (pseudo?) philosophical babble (sorry, but thats what it sounds like here on the receving end), then "i believe" again.

I am sorry.

(12-10-2017 11:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  If religion is heart in this then I would say that current (polish) society is chock-full of it and it indeed is despicable with it's religious taboos that make women second class citizens unable to choose abortion when they need it, or with denying same sex couples right to marriage, or by opposing right to good death.
I didn't imply "Heart" is religion. "Heart" is the true Help that we get in this world. If the Help you get isn't the (correct) One, not the correct one both for your society and for your catholic authorities, you wouldn't have a correct understanding on what happens in your society. What you describe as religious taboos are effectively what was the inquisition among the heretics.

Quote: Szuchow]
Nothing of value would be lost by cutting heart - religion - out and replacing it with more reason.
Correct if you mean heresies, correct for yourself if you mean (orthodox) tradition - for it is but a reflection of the Absolute - cutting it won't affect Him.
(Right) tradition wouldn't hold value to somebody that has no means of discerning Right from the rest.
Quote: Maybe then people would realize that their tribal superstitions shouldn't be applied to others.
I hope don't apply anything to you. You outline a notion that you have formed through your experience up to now and you connect it with me. "Tribal superstitions" , craziness, lack of reason, atheism, religions - are all part of our reality as is the tradition from the Holy Spirit. From our material standpoints we are unable to discern anyone from them as being Absolute without Help.


(14-10-2017 08:18 PM)natachan Wrote:  It doesn't offend me. I just don't know why you would choose that. I don't value happiness if it is based on lies or irrationality. Happiness to me is a goal that results from values I have achieved. I value truth and reason, so happiness for me cannot result from their denial.

Hey, natachan! Thanks for being so kind, your perspective on reality is nice, I hope you in deed attempt to apply what you write to me.
Look, the thing is that we, of the (right) Glory, are able to see reality not as Absolute, thus we see our values, of truth, reason and etc. as imperfect. Try being Completely Truthful one day, or being Completely Honest, or be Completely Loving... Can you achieve any of Him through your own effort? You could approach achieving Him, but you won't be able to run with the speed of Light.

Quote:Why would I do that? Reality is independent of our desires or wishes. It doesn't matter if it makes you happy or unhappy. It is what it is. Blue does not cease to be blue because we would prefer it be purple.
Exactly, we are part of reality. So, we are under the power of its causal chain of events, thus you can't escape e.g. being born by your parents, regardless of your wishes. However, by His Help, you could at least save from that chain His Image in you. The Image that discerns reality, the One that you attempt to recreate by your free will with your actions in reality.

Quote:I have no other choice. It is what it is. But from your next phrase it seems you seem to believe in free will in a way I don't. You point to our sense of guilt and empathy as evidence of this. I see no conflict. We evolved as a social species and it would make sense for pro-social tendencies to be selected for. I tend to view our brains as a series of algorithms. Would it not make sense for pro-social algorithms to be hard wired into us? This would allow for deviations but tend towards senses of sadness inevitably upon the completion of said deviation.

So, you essentially equate yourself with the causal chain that acts in material reality. This is a correct view, however for me it seems as limiting: how could you understand that there is reality, if there wasn't Something in you That was out of it? Thus free will isn't a function of the causal world, but a function that originates Outside of it.

(14-10-2017 10:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Understanding what a rainbow is and how it works makes it more wondrous, not less.

Yes. And by understanding God through His Help, you are able to see the rainbow as all the more wondrous. Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 04:24 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2017 04:51 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: Rightglory?
Ethos,

when i read your comments, your answers to our objections and questions rarely adress them at all. I am confused because what you (very verbosely) say seems to make no sense.
I honestly think, and its hard to tell someone something very uncomfortable without appearing being disrespectful or rude, that you
#1 have no clue what you mostly are talking about
#2 and this is because your thinking has been totally muddled ot the point where you cant clearly form coherent thoughts anymore, just strings of verbose (pseudo? there are beople who can better judge this) babble.

I am basing this f.e. on the following observations of you clearly and 100% missing the point(s) and/or using science as an argument where it actually not only not supports your position bu tactually refutes it (a.k.a. not knowing what you are talking about).

When i told you that you have no evidece for the possibility of or the factual existence of a god you replied (and missed the point completely):
Quote:There is proof, through the lives of the Saints who harbored the Holy Spirit inside of them, or through miracles that transcend our reality.
You are just doubling down on your claim, still not providing any furhter good reason for us to take you rarguments serious. You may stomp your feet all day, but that doesnt make your position more tenable.

A classic example of not knowing what you are talking about is next. Its a recurrting theme that, particularly religious persons, try to use science to find reasons for their beliefs, yet dont bother to understand the actual science, but (my guess) copy paste the according arguments from some authority they trust:

You are suggesting that "causal links" (probably pointing to the infamous first cause argument?) are supported by BBT and thermodynamics or relativity. They dont, they arent about causality. I think its safe to say you did a non sequitur here. If you knew only roughly what relativity, BBT or thermodynamics is about, you probably would not have linked these things to something they dont relate to at all.
Quote:What we see was caused by something, caused by something else in turn. A claim supported by physics - like the Big-Bang Theory, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Theory of Relativity, etc... Thus in what we observe as an expanding universe, there is an inevitable causal link between e.g. the smaller and the larger , between the closer and the farther etc.

All in all i think you are a very confused person, and i hope you get all your fantasy and completely messed up notions about our existence in this cosmos sorted out some day. Unlike so many other religious people at least you arent frothing at your mouth and can keep a somewhat civil discussion, although (imho) quite incoherent.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
18-10-2017, 04:25 PM
RE: Rightglory?
double post

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 04:36 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2017 04:40 PM by ethos.)
RE: Rightglory?
(18-10-2017 04:24 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Ethos,

when i read your comments, your answers to our objections and questions rarely adress them at all. I am confused because what you (very verbosely) say seems to make no sense.
I honestly think, and its hard to tell someone something very uncomfortable without appearing being disrespectful or rude, that you
#1 have no clue what you mostly are talking about
#2 and this is because your thinking has been totally muddled ot the point where you cant clearly form coherent thoughts anymore, just strings of verbose (pseudo? there are beople who can better judge this) babble.

I am basing this f.e. on the following observations of you clearly and 100% missing the point(s) and/or using science as an argument where it actually not only not supports your position bu tactually refutes it (a.k.a. not knowing what you are talking about).

When i told you that you have no evidece for the possibility of or the factual existence of a god you replied (and missed the point completely):
Quote:There is proof, through the lives of the Saints who harbored the Holy Spirit inside of them, or through miracles that transcend our reality.
You are just doubling down on your claim, still not providing any furhter good reason for us to take you rarguments serious. You may stomp your feet all day, but that doesnt make your position more tenable.

A classic example of not knowing what you are talking about is next. Its a recurrting theme that, particularly religious persons, try to use science to find reasons for their beliefs, yet dont bother to understand the actual science, but (my guess) copy paste the according arguments from some authority they trust:

You are suggesting that "causal links" (probably pointing to the infamous first cause argument?) are supported by BBT and thermodynamics or relativity. They dont, they arent about causality. I think its safe to say you did a non sequitur here. If you knew only roughly what relativity, BBT or thermodynamics is about, you probably would not have linked these things to something they dont relate to at all.
Quote:What we see was caused by something, caused by something else in turn. A claim supported by physics - like the Big-Bang Theory, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Theory of Relativity, etc... Thus in what we observe as an expanding universe, there is an inevitable causal link between e.g. the smaller and the larger , between the closer and the farther etc.

All in all i think you are a very confused person, and i hope you get all your fantasy and completely messed up notions about our existence in this cosmos sorted out some day. unlike so many other religious people at least you arent frothing at your mouth and can keep a somewhat civil discussion, although (imho) quite incoherent.

Hey Deesse23, thank you for your comment. I am sorry that I am unable to do better to show you my standpoint. From here, what you describe in your comment is coherent. Thank you for your kind words, I hope we write or meet again.
A greeting:


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 04:40 PM
RE: Rightglory?
'Bye

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
18-10-2017, 04:44 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(18-10-2017 04:40 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
'Bye
Bye and thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 04:58 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(18-10-2017 04:36 PM)ethos Wrote:  
(18-10-2017 04:24 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Ethos,

when i read your comments, your answers to our objections and questions rarely adress them at all. I am confused because what you (very verbosely) say seems to make no sense.
I honestly think, and its hard to tell someone something very uncomfortable without appearing being disrespectful or rude, that you
#1 have no clue what you mostly are talking about
#2 and this is because your thinking has been totally muddled ot the point where you cant clearly form coherent thoughts anymore, just strings of verbose (pseudo? there are beople who can better judge this) babble.

I am basing this f.e. on the following observations of you clearly and 100% missing the point(s) and/or using science as an argument where it actually not only not supports your position bu tactually refutes it (a.k.a. not knowing what you are talking about).

When i told you that you have no evidece for the possibility of or the factual existence of a god you replied (and missed the point completely):
You are just doubling down on your claim, still not providing any furhter good reason for us to take you rarguments serious. You may stomp your feet all day, but that doesnt make your position more tenable.

A classic example of not knowing what you are talking about is next. Its a recurrting theme that, particularly religious persons, try to use science to find reasons for their beliefs, yet dont bother to understand the actual science, but (my guess) copy paste the according arguments from some authority they trust:

You are suggesting that "causal links" (probably pointing to the infamous first cause argument?) are supported by BBT and thermodynamics or relativity. They dont, they arent about causality. I think its safe to say you did a non sequitur here. If you knew only roughly what relativity, BBT or thermodynamics is about, you probably would not have linked these things to something they dont relate to at all.

All in all i think you are a very confused person, and i hope you get all your fantasy and completely messed up notions about our existence in this cosmos sorted out some day. unlike so many other religious people at least you arent frothing at your mouth and can keep a somewhat civil discussion, although (imho) quite incoherent.

Hey Deesse23, thank you for your comment. I am sorry that I am unable to do better to show you my standpoint. From here, what you describe in your comment is coherent. Thank you for your kind words, I hope we write or meet again.
A greeting:



Thank you. We all are on a life long quest of looking for meaning to our life. Stay true to yourself and at least consider you could be wrong at all times, thats the least we can do.
There is not a single day when i am not in doubt about my opinions and decisions, but as long i feel the pain of doubt i am intellectually not dead, as well as feeling more and more physical pain ("i am getting to old for this shit") while getting older reminds me that i am still physically alive.

Good luck on your quest.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
18-10-2017, 08:45 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(18-10-2017 04:44 PM)ethos Wrote:  
(18-10-2017 04:40 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
'Bye
Bye and thanks!

So you're a twat who's going to piss off without actually answering questions.

Typical troll behavior. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-10-2017, 09:18 PM
Rightglory?
Given what I think about your god babble I can say only this: don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 09:38 PM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:20 AM)ethos Wrote:  "To understand" literally means to stand under it, to encompass it. And thats how our mind "understands" - it dissects a concept into its parts, tries to see the relationship between each part and reality and between the parts themselves, puts one by one the whole thing together and then compares the relationship of the whole finite claim to the unfolding reality.

"When one communicates, they are communicating an idea to another individual. Ideas are created by men thus the idea cannot be superior to its creator. The Rastafari philosophy asserts that every man woman and child are equal (hence the term InI -- I and I) therefore the individual who is receiving the information is equal to the communicator of the information and superior to the idea being communicated. That being said, one should not “understand” or stand under an idea; when they absorb and correctly perceive an idea they “Overstand” it."
-- Itations of Jamaica and I Rastafari, Mihlawhdh Faristzaddi

Just to put a different perspective on it. Big Grin

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: